Where is the Western alliance going? It has always given the image of a relatively coherent whole, supported by a common strategic vision, solid institutions and a widely shared base of values. Certainly, disagreements have never been absent. The Suez crisis, the war in Iraq, trade disputes and even recurring debates on sharing the security burden have sometimes put transatlantic relations to the test. But these differences were generally contained within a political and strategic framework whose foundations were not called into question.
Today, this framework seems more and more fragile. The recent controversy caused by comments from senior Trump administration officials on the Nowak affair (Henry Nowak, handcuffed by police as he died after being stabbed by an ethnic Sikh Briton), followed by the strong reaction from British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the leader Liberal Democrat Ed Davey, constitutes a new episode revealing a deeper trend.
Beyond the merits of the case, it is the principle that is of concern. London clearly considered these positions as an intrusion into a matter falling exclusively within its national jurisdiction. What could appear to be just a simple diplomatic incident, placed in a broader context, is part of a succession of events which reflect a growing unease within the Western political space.
For several months, the signals have been multiplying. Relations between Washington and several European capitals have become tense around questions of defense, collective security and the future role of the Atlantic Alliance. Subjects once treated with discretion are now debated in public, often in disconcerting language.
At the same time, the tariff wars launched by Washington have affected strategic adversaries and historical partners indiscriminately. This development marks a break with a logic which wanted alliances to offer at least a minimum of predictability in economic relations.
Canada itself was not spared. The sometimes lively exchanges between Trump and Mark Carney were surprising in their tone and frequency. Just a few years ago, such a level of friction between two such closely linked allies would have seemed improbable.
The Greenland episode also left its mark. What could appear as a passing provocation gradually transformed into a diplomatic subject in its own right, raising questions and unease among the traditional allies of the United States.
The war in Gaza has, for its part, highlighted even deeper differences. Behind the declarations of principle, the positions sometimes revealed themselves to be very distant on humanitarian questions, respect for international law and the prospects for a lasting settlement of the conflict.
Even the Chagos issue, which fundamentally concerns the unfinished process of decolonization, has not escaped this dynamic. What seemed certain at certain moments appeared much less certain at others. Positions fluctuated according to political, strategic and electoral considerations, contributing to reinforcing the impression of a certain confusion.
Added to this is another worrying development, the deterioration of the relationship between political power and certain media.
The repeated accusations of fake newsthe verbal confrontations with journalists, the public challenges to established media and the sometimes spectacular scenes observed at the White House, testify to a climate of confrontation that has become almost permanent.
Taken in isolation, each of these episodes can find an explanation. Together, they set a trend. That of a West which seems to have more and more difficulty defining coherent and constant lines of conduct.
Since the end of the Second World War, Western democracies have largely based their influence on a few essential principles: respect for the sovereignty of States; the rule of law; the independence of institutions and the predictability of international behavior.
However, it is precisely on these principles that questions are multiplying today. Sovereignty is invoked in certain cases but put into perspective in others. Interference is denounced when it comes from geopolitical adversaries, but sometimes tolerated when it concerns partners or allies. Free trade officially remains an objective, while trade barriers multiply in practice.
These contradictions do not escape the rest of the world. In many countries of the South, they fuel a growing feeling that international rules are no longer applied uniformly but according to circumstantial considerations.
Beyond these contradictions, another reality is gradually emerging. Old certainties disappear.
The traditional categories that structured international relations are becoming less relevant. Yesterday’s allies can disagree on major issues. Rivalries and convergences often coexist between the same actors. Domestic policy considerations increasingly influence diplomatic choices. The boundaries between domestic and foreign policy are becoming more and more porous. This does not mean that the Western alliance is about to collapse.
The economic, military, technological and human ties that unite Europe and North America remain considerable. It would, however, be equally unwise to ignore the signs of mounting tension.
The question is not whether disagreements exist. Democracies have always lived with debate and contradiction. The real question is whether the main Western players still share the same understanding of the rules, norms and principles that have long constituted the cement of their cohesion.
This is where doubt sets in.
The Nowak affair will undoubtedly pass. Trade tensions will perhaps eventually ease. Media controversies will give way to other controversies. But the accumulation of these episodes tells a larger story. It reveals a Western space crossed by its own contradictions, in search of new benchmarks and confronted with a questioning of some of its oldest certainties. The political order resulting from the post-war period is in the process of being transformed. And this transformation could well constitute one of the most significant geopolitical phenomena of our time.
